Time for ALR exclusion?

Quick background review: The 55.2-hectare Garden City Lands are conserved in B.C.’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and only the Agricultural Land Commission can “exclude” them for non-ALR development. In 2009, the Agricultural Land Commission firmly rejected a massive ALR-exclusion application put forward by the City of Richmond at the bidding of the federal land disposal company and the Musqueam Indian Band. That confirmed the commission’s firm refusal of the land disposer’s application in 2006. Now, in 2010, some council members are implying still another campaign to get the City to make another ALR-exclusion application.

This is just a quick first draft of reasons why Richmond council should put an immediate stop to the irresponsible nonsense. I’m looking for your help to take this further. What should be added or modified? Please provide constructive comments below the post or (like more of our readers) email your suggestions toGardenCityLands@Shaw.ca. I’ll revise and refine this in a few days, incorporating your advice.

Update, April 21, 201o: Well, that was the goal, but time has passed, and it’s now a reality. I’ve deleted the old list of reasons here. For the new list and a change in outlook, please start with the new introductory post, “New gratefulness.”

I find all your points extremely well taken and expressed. The only one that I find a bit of a stretch (and one can devalue all in the wrong eyes), is the “respect for the hospitality industry.” You might want to restate that somewhat to emphasize the unique character of Richmond, in its combination of rural and urban life.

Respect the future and be prepared to meet its uncertainty. There is always a big part of unknown demands and unforeseen problems and it is better to have reserves in order to leave the room to adapt. If Garden City Lands are kept in the Agriculture Lands reserve status, it will ensure that we prepared for the unknown future and have an access to its use today in a way that will not interfere with its agriculture use if our kids need it in their future.

Thanks, Mary and Olga and those who have responded by email. Keep the suggestions coming, everyone!

Mary has just emailed me a point that expresses her comment suggestion in the “Respect. . . .” format:
“Respect the uniqueness of Richmond, a vibrant and burgeoning community that prizes its natural heritage and its rich agricultural history, and strives to integrate them and preserve them, so that its residents can experience the benefits of urban development without losing touch with the source of our sustenance.”